Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	drink_v	eat_v	guilty_a	6,505	4	9.4260	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77707	Rome's conviction: or, A discoverie of the unsoundness of the main grounds of Rome's religion, in answer to a book, called The right religion, evinced by L.B. Shewing, 1. That the Romish Church is not the true and onely Catholick Church, infallible ground and rule of faith. 2. That the main doctrines of the Romish Church are damnable errors, & therefore to be deserted by such as would be saved. By William Brownsword, M.A. and minister of the Gospel at Douglas Chappell in Lancashire.	Brownsword, William, b. 1625 or 6.	1654 (1654)	Wing B5216; Thomason E1474_2; ESTC R209513	181,322	400

bread should become the body of Christ to us and that the Pascall Lamb or Manna should be so to the Jewes for Christ is called the Passover of Manna yea in these Sacraments Christ was truely and savingly received by them they did eat the same spirituall meat with us and drank the same spirituall drink for they drank of the Rock that followed them And that Rock was Christ What can be more express than these last words yet Papists will not here allow of Transubstantiation 2. That Bodies are the object of Sense yea and that the Senses cannot be deceived in judging of them whilest the Organ is rightly disposed the medium is convenient the distance equall the Sences of more then one concur in judgeing and that the phantasies be not hurt But here if the words be taken properly is a body which is not the object of Sense though the sences be rightly disposed the medium convenient the distance equall c. If you say it may be done by a miracle I answer first amongst the miracles of the Primitive Church this was never numbred by them or any others that I have read though its a greater miracle if a miracle than any others that are mentioned 2. In those miracles recorded in Scripture which were wrought by transmutation there was no deceiving of the Sense When Moses rod was turned into a Serpent as it was a true Serpent so the Senses did truely discern a Serpent When the waters were turned into blood the blood had the last colour effect of blood slaying the fish in it When by our Saviour the waters were turned into wine as it was true wine so it had sensible qualities as the last smell c. of wine It was the practice of the Sorcerers of Egypt to cause an appearance when there was no reall existance It s the practice of Papists to urge a bodily existence without the least appearance like their forefathers the Valentinians whom Irenaeus chargeth with saying of Christ Aliud erat aliud videbatur when some affirmed in the Sacrament there was no true fraction but onely in appearance Lorichius answers out of Ambrose Nihil falsum putandum in Sacramento veritatis c. We must not think of any falshood in this true Sacrament in the inchantments of Magitians the eyes are deceived that that seems to be which is not but it s otherwise in the Sacrament of Truth Gerrhard Lorich Instit Cathol de sacr Eucharist pag. 72. 2. To this I may adde that the materiall parts of Sacraments must be sensible objects such were the Sacraments of the Jewes and such without controversie is Baptisme where the materiall part is water which the Senses see feel c. Therefore it must be so in the Eucharist for there can no reason of a difference be given You cannot say that the materiall parts of it are bread and wine for you teach that in the Sacrament there is neither bread nor wine though there was before Consecration and the body of Christ cannot be it for it s not a sensible object being neither seen nor felt nor tasted and accidentall forms are distinct from matter Aquinas delivers this Conclusion Cum naturale sit homini c. Whereas its naturall for man to attain to the knowledge of intelligible objects by those which are sensible A Sacrament which signifies spirituall and intelligible good ought to be a sensible thing which how you will find it in your Sacrament I know not 3. That humane flesh is not to be eaten But if these words This is my Body be taken properly then Christs flesh should be carnally eaten which is doctrine for Cannibals not for Christians Saint Augustine upon this very ground understands those words John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh c. figuratively and delivers this generall rule Aug. de doctr Christ l. 5. c. 16 Si aut facinus vel flagitium c. If the Scripture seem to command that which is hainous and wicked it s a figurative speech and instances in those words in S. John Papists give this reason of the invisibility of Christs body in this Sacrament because man abhors to eat humane flesh in the proper shape But what difference between one man seeing the shape of humane flesh and anothers hearing of such a thing to be humane flesh though he see it not It s the thing it self not the form or shape of it that is abominable a piece of humane flesh might be brought into such a form as it could not by the eye be distinguished from other flesh yet tell a man its humane flesh and he shall loath it upon that very report Though your seduced followers do not see flesh in thr Sacrament yet you tell and perswade them that the Host is humane flesh with its blood in it so that I must needs say they have either weak faith or strong stomacks To conclude Let me know to what end is this eating of Christs body for it s not turned into the substance of our body whereby it should nourish the body for then our bodies should consist of Christ which were a blasphemous assertion and for the soul it s not nourisht by carnal meat as flesh and blood spirits do not eat or drink nor are they capable of nutrition there is no Spirituall advantage comes by it Besides when our Saviour had been speaking so fully of eating his flesh and drinking his blood to prevent their carnall conceits of this spirituall Doctrine he addi this wholsome and seasonable doctrine that for his body it was to ascend up into Heaven where he was before and therefore his words were to be understood not carnally but Spiritually The words that I speak are Spirit John 6.63 You answer that these words do not run counter to your said truth in as much as these words were uttered to the Capernaits in answer to their question of Christs Power and not of the signification of his words Reply 1. I desire to know your ground for this Exposition I cannot finde that it is the Churches and I thought you an enemy to the private spirit 2. It s most evident that these words are uttered for explication of the words precedent for having told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood if they had life by him they question what he may mean by eating his flesh and drinking his blood and they seem to answer their own question by a carnall conceit which was as the Rhemists observe They imagined that he would kill himself and cut and mangle his flesh into parts and so give it them raw or rost to be eaten among them which could not be meant saith Augustine for that had contained an hainous and barbarous fact c. He tells them therefore they must understand his words spiritually of our abiding in him and he in us according to Augustine Tract 27. in Joan. tom 9. Lyra. in text Lyranus speaks very well to this purpose

Spiritus c. They are Spirit as if he should say the words I have spoken have a Spirituall sence and so they vivifie they have a Spirituall understanding the flesh of Christ is eaten in this Sacrament in a spiritual manner Your pleas for this opinion are vain 1. You say The question was not what says he that they knew would be trifling and ridiculous Christ having immediately before confirmed the signification of his first words This is my Body By other latter Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall have no life in you and they both heard and understood the language he spake in Reply 1. Pray where are those first words This is my Body You shut your eyes and laid aside your honesty when you brought them in as spoken by Christ before his supposed answer But suppose them there tell us next how those latter words doe confirme the signification of them 2. When you tell us they knew what he said and both heard and understood the language he spake in you will shew your self a notorious trifler Wil it follow that because they knew his words heard understood his language that therfore they understood his meaning I trow not Those that read the hard of places of Pauls Epistles did both hear understand the language he spake in yet knew not his meaning and therefore wrested them to their own perdition The Jews both heard and understood the language Christ delivered his parables in yet it was not given them to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven Nicodemus understood Christs language but not his meaning about regeneration You cannot deny but the Laity may both hear and understand the language whereinto the Scriptures are translated yet their private Spirit must not think of understanding the Scriptures meaning Thus though these Capernaits might and did understand his language yet they did remaine ignorant of their true meaning as all prudent Expositors confess and your Rhemists expresly affirm saying Their gross and carnal conceiving of his words of his flesh and the manner of eating the same was unprofitable which is plain by the sentence following where he warneth t●em that his words be spiri life of high mystical meaning and not vulgarly and grosly to be taken as they took them 2. You adde Therefore except you will say that Christ answered not to the purpose his scope and aime must be to declare his power to the ●nd to convince the Capernaits that he was full able to perform what he said Reply 1. If you will have it the aim of Christ to declare his power to perform what he said and that directly in answer to the Caper●aits question you must grant that Christ did declare his ability to give them his body cut mangled into pieces for so they understand the eating of his flesh and thereupon grounded their question How can this man give us his flesh cut and mangled into pieces for the effecting of this they expected a proof of his power if you will have it so Now this your selfe will grant impossible being contrary to the will of God the measure of his power therefore you must confess that Christ spake not to the purpose as you object against us Or grant as the truth is that they understood not Christ's meaning and therefore that he answered concerning the manner of their eating not his power of giving his flesh c. 2. We do not find how Christ declares any power in these words You answer He doth it effectually and home by saying my words are spirit A Spirit having strength and vertue to do more then all bodyes put together can either do or conceive Reply A goodly Argument and fit for your children that are content with stones in stead of bread Christ is a Spirit is he therefore able to give his flesh to be eaten then all Spirits have the same power But Sir why cannot a man a body give his flesh to be eaten carnally I see no difficulty in it nor need of any spiritual power to effect it if there be but Popish or other Cannibals that will eat it 2. How can the words of Christ be called a Spirit in your sence for you take not spirit for breath but properly Are words living and intelligent beings as Spirits are But I suppose this quaint Exposition was hammered out of your own brain and though it agrees neither with Fathers nor your elder brethren yet because it opposeth the wicked Calvinists you like it well And indeed so do I both because it shews you to be a most ingenious learned acute and reverend Expositor and also discovers the goodness of your cause that needs such Expositions Objection 2. The second Objection say you The Roman Church committeth idolatry in her ad●ration at Mass bowing to the Name of Jesus Altars Images and Relicks You answer 1. By the Commandment Thou shalt not make to thy selfe any graven thing nor adore it Exod. 20. is neither forbid the Art of Engraving Carving Printing Painting Casting Sowing Embroydering nor yet all manner of religious honour to be given to creatures Reply 1. The Art of Engraving c. is certainly lawful yet the exercise of it hath its limitations which I conceive may be reduced to these two heads 1. That nothing be engraven c. but what ought to be engraven c. whereby is forbidden the engraving carving painting any lascivious pictures tending to excite lust but especially as to our purpose painting engraving and carving any images of the divine Persons thus Moses tells the Jews Ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude only ye heard a voyce Take ye therefore good heed unto your selves for ye saw no māner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves Deut. 4.14 15 16. and make you a graven image the similitude of any figure the likenes● of male and female c. For this reason Eusebius refused to send Constantia the Image of Christ Euseb Eccles l. 7. c. 17. and imputes the Erection of Christs Image to an heathenish Custome saying It is not any marvel at all that they which of the Gentiles were cured by our Saviour made and set up such things for the men of old of an Heathenish custome were wont to honour after this manner such as they counted Saviours Lorichius doth excellently set forth this Ger. Lorich instit Cathol in praecept fol. 95. Est praeterea abusus imaginum c. There is saith he besides an abuse of Images in that we presume to express the sacred Trinity which is truly a most pestilent heresie for what can be more contrary to the Holy Trinity then to paint the Father like a crooked old man the Son in the form of a young man and the Holy Ghost like a flying fowle What can Ideots learn from such a

still hereticks and cursed to hell by the Tridentine Conventicle To say there is no express command for the Cup therfore it cannot be sacriledge to take it away is false for it may be sacriledge to take away an holy thing though there be no express command for the thing You say there is no command for the people to use the Cup. Now if this be so I am confident you cannot shew me an express command for the peoples eating the bread which you seem to grant in saying that in the primitive times the people sometimes received the cup not the bread which they durst not have done if there had been an express command for receiving the bread Now I pray resolve us whether it would be sacriledg to take away from the people both bread and wine If it be not sacrilegious then it is evident your people stand at the Popes mercy for their partaking at all of the Sacrament and for any thing I see he may take it quite from them If it be sacrilegious then it s as evident that sacriledge depends not absolutely on a particular command and that its truely sacrilegious to take away the cup from them 4. There is a Command for both Let a man examine himselfelf and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup 1 Cor. 11.28 v. 25. from whence Dionysius Carthusiensis infers that in the Primitive Church the Sacrament was administred under both kinds This do ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me i. e. as Dionysius expounds it take this cup and drink of it So t is said He took the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it And they all drank of it Mat. 26.27 You answer These words indeed Doe th●s in commemoration of me Drink ye all of this imply a Commandement but concerning on●ly Priests to whom as the p●wer of making so the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper The Reason is because hereby as the words clearly bear he chiefly a●mes at a remembrance of his death and passion which including a separation of his soul from his body and of his blood from his flesh cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kind Reply 1. Do the words onely imply a command are they not as express and full a command as can be 2. How may it appear that it concerns onely Priests that the Obligation of taking under both kinds is peculiar and proper to them there are divers reasons to the contrary 1. If it concerned onely Priests then the people could not be able to produce any precept of Christ for their receiving at all because with this is joyned the command of eating the bread and to these all precepts of this nature are reducible 2. Christ you say in the words doth chiefly aim at a remembrance of his death and passion which cannot be so lively and so fully represented under one kinde But the people are able to remember Christs death and passion as well as the Priests yea and are as much obliged thereto in regard of their particular interest in the benefits of Christ represented in the Sacrament and particularly by the Cup. Which benefits are the ground of our receiving of this Element as appears by the Evangelist Drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sin Supr It cannot be denied but the reason of this Precept doth as much concern the people as the Priests the precept therefore must also concern them 3. There were no Priests present with Christ at his Institution for according to Papals none were present but the twelve Apostles Now they were not Massing Priests for first its the common opinion amongst you that the order of Priesthood was not actually conferd till after Christs resurrection when he sent them and breathed on them Joh. 20. He could not therefore give a command to Priests when there were no Priests with him 2. The twelve Apostles according to the Popish Schoolmen and others did represent Bishops not ordinary Priests who as Aquinas severall times affirms were the successours of the seventie Disciples 4. If none were with Christ but the twelve which is questionable it is most evident that they did represent believers and that the command concerned them Cassander shews this out of divers antient Authors viz. Paschasius Rathertus Chrysostome Theophylactus Cyprian Origen and Augustine Cass de sacr Com. sub utraque spec p. 1019. And certainly if it were not thus the Apostle did in vain urge the Institution and Precept of Christ to the Saints or private Christians in Corinth and that in order to their practice they might have told him that it concern'd himself and such as he but not them You bolster up your selves much by your word Make to whom as the power of making c. hereby endeavouring to perswade us that Christ speaks to sacrificers about sacrificing hereby shut out the people frō the cup. But without any reason for if it could prove any thing it should seem rather to appropriate the use of the bread to the Priests then the Cup seeing they have Christned it an incruent sacrifice the wine after consecration being reall and true blood But I wonder seeing our criticall adversaries are so full of this word that the hot headed Rhemists did not translate it Make this if it were for nothing but to oppose the Heretical Calvinisti that render the Greek Do this Sure they were convinced that this conceit was but worthy of private observation and therefore creeps in with the note onely but further its observable that S. Matthew and S. Mark say onely Take eat This is my body drink you all of it He gave it to them and they all drank of it S. Luke saith Do this not mentioning taking or eating or drinking of it S. Paul unites them in one saying Take Eat This do in remembrance of me So that to do this is to take and eat the bread and drink the wine according to Christs Institution which doth principally concern the people And this Dyonisius Carthusiensis doth propound as probable And its further observable that whereas S. Luke onely of all the Evangelists doth use the words Do this he onely useth it with reference to the bread which belongs say you to the people not to the Cup which is the sacrificers portion The precept which you mention out of S. John Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood c. which you say extends to the Laitie I shall not much build upon because I conceive it s not spoken of the Sacramentall eating and drinking This onely I shall gather from it that Christ is perfect nourishment and that as his flesh is meat so his blood is drink both necessary for our nourishment and that therefore as we have the Bread in the Sacrament to assure

he will gather strength by observing that the above named Luther Zuinglius Calvin c. But few days or months before their opposition held as the rest of Christians did in al● points with the said Company and that neither they nor any of them have left to posterity the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side to make good the same c. Ans 1. How this strengthens your proof I see not Should the Jews have objected against our Saviours and the Apostles Converts that their Jewish Doctrine was generally received and preached yea and that these Converts as Paul c. but a few days or months before their opposition held as other Jews did Would this think you make for them that they were the true Church The Gentiles the greatest part of the World profest against Christ and his truth and those who were called out of them to receive the truth did but a little before comply with the Gentiles against Christ Must this therefore strengthen the Gentiles cause against the truth It may be your self and others who have apostalized from the true religion but a few months before your opposition held as the rest of true Orthodox Christians did yet this will not even in your conceit advance your cause 2. It s questionable whether Luther Zuinglius and Calvin did hold with you in all points and that but a few days or months before their publique opposition of you The Speech of Alphonsus à Castro seems to import the contrary when he tells us that a great company seemed to wait for Luther and joyned with him as soon as he appeared I cannot think but that Luther was against the sale of indulgencies longer then a few weeks or months before his opposition 3. It s a gross lye that there is not left the least mention of any number of men in being before their opposition with whom to joyn and side I have fully shewed the contrary to this and therefore remitting the Reader to what I have formerly said I come to his next Argument Arg. 3. That Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church which is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical but the above mentioned Company is acknowledged even by their adversaries to be Apostolical therefore that Company composeth and maketh up the Catholick Church The first Proposition say you is evident forasmuch as Apostolical in a right and genuine sence signifieth to believe as the Apostles believed which is to be Catholick Arg. 1. It seems now that profession of Apostolical Doctrine is a convincing argument to prove a Company to be the Catholick Church But Sir why did you not approve of this argument when we brought it for the Protestant Church Or how could you without blushing tell us That true Doctrine which is none other then Apostolical doctrin they being reciprocal is no mark of a true Church it being often found among Schismaticks who for want of Communion cannot make a true Church pag. 60. If Protestants can prove they believe those doctrines the Apostles believed will you acknowledge them the true Apostolical and Catholick Church We desire no more but that leaving humane constitutions and traditions you would examine our Doctrines by Scripture the true Epitome of Apostolical Doctrines and if we consent not hereunto proclaim us Hereticks 2. Your Explication of the word Apostolical is good and it evidently shews that Personal Succession is inferiour to Doctrinal in denominating a Church Apostolical and Catholick and that the Protestants supposed want of Personal uninterrupted Succession is no hinderance to their being the Catholick Church All which doth extreamly weaken your former doctrines 3. I deny your Minor Proposition and come to examine your proof of it You say It appears no less clear in several Protestant Writers who expresly account that the Apostles first planted the Christian Faith in England that the same was retained by Bishops and Pastors from the first Plantati n to S. Austine that in substance it differed not from that which S. Austine brought in that S. Austine was sent by Gregory the Great Bishop of Rome to convert the Saxons in England to the Roman Faith that the Roman Church in Gregory t●e Greats time was the same it is at this present c. All which you reduce to this Syllogism S. Austins Church and Doctrine were Apostolical S. Austins Church Doctrine were the same with the now Roman therefore the Roman Church and Doctrine are Apostolical I answer 1. By S. Austins Church I suppose you mean the Roman Church in S. Austins time as when you say The Roman Church in Gregory the Great 's ●ime was the same it is at this present Hereupon I particularly answer Gregory 1. To your Major That the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the time of Austin and Gregory was the same with the Doctrine of the Apostles 1. The Apostle tells us That even in his time the mystery of iniquity did begin to work and succeeding Ages discover its progress Most Ages did contribute some materials towards Rome's Temple though the nearer to the Apostles were more opposite and so more sparing in their contributions to it Hence it was that in the first five hundred years there is little to be found tending to Popery and that which is is rather in notions and terms then propositions as in most ancient Fathers we read the words Altar Sacrifice Merit c. yet it will never be proved that they used them for that which Papists now will have thē to signifie In the next age there was a greater decay of purity than before ignorance did much aboudd superstitiō attendant on it In this age did Gregory Austin live the former being sirnamed Rainold praelect de lib. Ap c. tom 1. prael 39. p. 365 Sixt. Senen bill Stae l. 5. Au. 137 F. Hier. Porter in the life of S. Gregory p. 266. Chronic. Carion lib. 4. p. 552 The Great indeed he was great as learned Rainolds observe● in comparison of those who succeeded him some of them who were before him yet was he short of apostolical purity being guilty of superstition and errour in divers points as the adjudging of children unbaptized to the torments of Hell extending Gods promise of Salvation even to Reprobates making Gods decree mutable and praying for such as are already damned as in the Case of Trojan Carion in his Chronicles attributes to him divers errours as Invocation of Saints and dedication of Temples to them a wrong perswasion of Monkish profession Works of Supererrogation Satisfactions Vows Virginity an opinion of sacrificing Christs body and blood for the dead whereunto he was moved by the report of Apparitions And besides all these he is noted as superstitious in imposition of Ceremonies and those some of them Jewish which are not fit to be imposed on the Church of Christ And as Gregory was guilty so

us of nourishment by his Body so we ought to have the Cup to assure us of an interest in his blood bread it self being neither naturally nor Ex Instituto any representation of blood Cass supr And certainly from hence divers of the Fathers did conclude the use of the Cup necessary for the people See Origen and Augustine cited by Cassander to this purpose Lastly you say For Confirmation look up into the Primitive times even of the Apostles and Christ Act. 2.42.46 and you will find by their promiscuous Communion sometimes under one kinde sometimes under another and sometimes under both that they never understood of any Commandement of Communicating und●r both kindes Reply 1. The Councell of Constance acknowledgeth that as Christ did Institute and Administer it under both kinds so the Primitive Christians did use it 2. What reason can be given why in other Sacraments Jewish and Christians the materiall part should be determined and appointed and that in this it should be left to the discretion of a Pope 3. If it was such a matter of indifferency in the Primitive times whether Christians did communicate in either or both kinds How comes it now to be a matter of necessitie so as Christians may not Communicate under both kinds But 4. I challenge you to name one ancient and approved Author who asserts that the Primitive Christians did communicate in wine onely or in bread onely which will be as hard for you to do as for the Artotyritae to prove that they communicated in bread and cheese 5. The Text you urge proves not your assertion For first there is no mention of their communicating in wine onely which is one part of your assertion 2. Breaking of Bread doth not infer their Sacramentall receiving of Bread onely It s a noted Hebrew phrase and is as much as giving or eating of meat of what kind soever as Lament 4.4 Isai 58.7 Sanctius upon the Text you mention saith Omnis cibus c. All kinde of meat in Scripture languge is called Bread But beside how will it be proved to be meant of the Lords Supper Lyranus understands it of ordinary eating so do Chrysostome and Oecumenius and why may it not be understood of their Love-feasts which were means of preserving Charity amongst Christians or of the distribution of meat out of the common stock for the relief of poor Christians according to the custome of those times related by Sanctius And thus it very well answers the Hebrew phrase Isa 58. where you reade of breaking bread to the hungry Lastly supposing it to be understood of the Lords Supper it must give way to a Sonecdoche the Bread being put for both Elements else the Apostles did either not communicate with them which is against the Text or if they did they were sacrilegious in Communicating in one kind onely there being as you say a Command for them to Communicate in both 2. Else it was no Sacrament Commemorative of Christs death because this cannot be lively and fully set forth under one kind as your self have acknowledge It must therefore either not be meant of the Sacrament or if it be Bread must be taken for both Elements and either of these doth destroy the inferences you raise from the Text. To conclude Look you into the Primitive times of the Apostles and Christ and see if you find Communion under one kind an Article of Faith as now it is and if you find it not as I am sure you cannot ceas that loud cry of the antiquity of your Faith wherewith you fil the ears and puzzle the heads of illiterate and credulous persons The Epilogue I have done with the book The Epilogue only remains shuft up with fained and flattering words to deceive the simple Reader containing more Rhetorick than Logick more of words than reason and therefore not worthy any particular inquisition and confutation yet in imitation of it I shall address my self to the Reader by way of advice against the delusiv charms of this Syren Desiring thee to consider his assertions and my answers to them and weigh them by Scripture and reason and what thou findest according to these receive and intertain I would not with this Authour perswade thee to a groundless credulitie that thou shouldest receive a way without trying it whilest he cries out It behoves you to effect it with speed and not stand reasoning h●w this why the other replies beget delayes and delayes are seldome out of the ill company of danger Epil pag. 124. Himselfe delivers better Doctrine and safer for thee when he tells thee That Christianitie is not against reason and he is to be reputed silly and light that hastneth upon a truth Ecclus 19. however propo●ed without examination of its credibilitie and consistence with nature which must be the work of reason nay more Page 25. that belief is beholding to reason even for discerning and finding out her guide the true Church which sentences I leave this Doctor to reconcile Be not of those silly and light ones The Apostle bids us prove all things and hold fast that which is good That which is suddenly believed is as easily rejected as before received Deliberations are means of setledness Art thou out of the way of truth return and live Angels will rejoyce over thee though not in expectation of the reparation of their ruines as this Author speaks they being happy and from the beginning above the verge of a ruinous estate Seek the way to Sion peace is within her walls and prosperity within her palaces Hast thou received the truth hold it fast contend earnestly for it sell it not Let not the Images of Babylon the images of men pourtrayed upon the walls pourtrayed with vermilion girded with girdles upon their loyns exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads c. allure thee that thou shouldest commit Adultery with them and that the Babylonians should come into thy bed of love and defile thee with their whoredoms and thy mind be alienated from the true Church where the word of God is purely preached and the Sacraments rightly administred where is purity without pomp divine verities without humane traditions religious worship without superstition Finally where Christ Jesus is exalted in his Person Natures Offices and the Elect called edified comforted and out of which ordinarily there is no Salvation These are the Badges of the Reformed Churches in which thou mayest ride safely till at last thou be set on shore in that Country where thou shalt find an eternal and exceeding weight of glory the free reward of thy constancy prepared for thee and shalt for ever sing praises to God and to the Lamb that sits upon the Throne whom thou hast served FINIS Reader thou art desired to mend these Errata's with thy Pen there are some other litteral faults escaped which thou mayest discern in reading and so receive no prejudice PAge 6. l. 21. r. Christianis p. 10. l. 12. r. Cuivis p. 12. l. 1. r. Gospels p. 14. l. 22. r. you p. 16. l. 21. fo 1. r. 5. p. 19. l. 28. r. praelati p. 31. l. 5. for Church r. Pope p. 33. l. 26. r. not p. 52. l. 23. for men r. Pen p. 59. l. 27. r. Successors p. 65. l. 4. r. by p. 70. l. 19. r. Dowaists p. 76. l. 22. r. as if p. 81. l. 22. r. mendata 24. r. us p. 92. l. 1. for hope r. Pope p. 103. l. 1. r. are p. 105. l. 30. r. be p. 122. l. 24. r. its l testimony p. 130. l. 2. r. i. e. p. 133. l. 7. r. 1 trow p. 153. .27 r. mediation p. 136. l. 28. r. mediation 137. l. 18. r. valid p. 144. l. 12. r. leaning p. 170. l. 12. r. exorcise p. 178. l. 10. r. naming 185. l. 18. r. way p. 189. l. 2. r. gross carnal presence p. 215. l. 8. r. private 217. l. 25. r. Rom. 8.8 by Syricius p. 221. l. 1. are p. 222. l. 19. r. Azorius l. 30. r. Azorius p. 236. l. 1. r. omit p. 237. l. 16. r. in them p. 239. l. 24. r. to your selves p. 253. l. 22. r. unaccompanied p. 259. l. 24. r. seven p. 275. l. 20. r. individed p. 286. l. 9. r. he hath p. 291. l. 1. r. should not p. 292. l. 1. 5. r. taste p. 310. l. 23. r. not without p. 312. l. 1. r. again p. 317. l. 15. dele he p. 321. l. 2. 7. r. meanness p. 329. l. 11. r. she p. 343. l. 10. r. bring p. 347. l. 12. for three r. thirdly p. 351. l. 2. r. tearming l. 4. r. suppose